Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 58136-58137 [2019-23770]

Download as PDF 58136 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as an initial reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c). Dated: October 18, 2019. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, Policy & Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of the investigation covers aluminum wire and cable, which is defined as an assembly of one or more electrical conductors made from 8000 Series Aluminum Alloys (defined in accordance with ASTM B800), Aluminum Alloy 1350 (defined in accordance with ASTM B230/ B230M or B609/B609M), and/or Aluminum Alloy 6201 (defined in accordance with ASTM B398/B398M), provided that: (1) At least one of the electrical conductors is insulated; (2) each insulated electrical conductor has a voltage rating greater than 80 volts and not exceeding 1,000 volts; and (3) at least one electrical conductor is stranded and has a size not less than 16.5 thousand circular mil (kcmil) and not greater than 1,000 kcmil. The assembly may: (1) Include a grounding or neutral conductor; (2) be clad with aluminum, steel, or other base metal; or (3) include a steel support center wire, one or more connectors, a tape shield, a jacket or other covering, and/or filler materials. Most aluminum wire and cable products conform to National Electrical Code (NEC) types THHN, THWN, THWN–2, XHHW–2, USE, USE–2, RHH, RHW, or RHW–2, and also conform to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards UL–44, UL–83, UL–758, UL– VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 854, UL–1063, UL–1277, UL–1569, UL–1581, or UL–4703, but such conformity is not required for the merchandise to be included within the scope. The scope of the investigation specifically excludes aluminum wire and cable products in lengths less than six feet, whether or not included in equipment already assembled at the time of importation. The merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 8544.49.9000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheading 8544.42.9090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for Export Subsidies VII. Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act VIII. China-Wide Entity and Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences IX. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Selection of the AFA Rate Comment 2: Application of Total AFA to Huatong Comment 3: Huatong’s Eligibility for a Separate Rate Comment 4: Application of Total AFA to Silin Comment 5: Offset of Countervailable Benefits for Aluminum Rod X. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2019–23612 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–201–846] Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, Ct. No. 17–00214, Slip Op. 19–131 (CIT October 18, 2019) (CSC Sugar II). Commerce is notifying the public of the CIT’s ruling that Commerce’s 2017 amendment to the Agreement Suspending the AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (CVD Agreement) must be vacated. Commerce intends to take action to implement the CIT ruling by November 18, 2019. DATES: November 29, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0162. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the Government of Mexico (GOM) signed the CVD Agreement.1 Between June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce and the GOM held consultations to address concerns raised by the domestic industry and to ensure that the CVD Agreement met the statutory requirements for a suspension agreement, e.g., that suspension of the investigation was in the public interest, including the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and that effective monitoring was practicable. The consultations resulted in Commerce and the GOM signing an amendment to the CVD Agreement on June 30, 2017, which was subsequently published in the Federal Register.2 CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce’s determination to amend the CVD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its obligation to file a complete administrative record.3 Specifically, CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the record ex parte communications between Commerce officials and interested parties (including the domestic sugar industry and representatives of Mexico) as required by section 777(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).4 The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement the administrative record with any ex parte communications regarding the CVD Amendment.5 CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the agency record arguing that Commerce’s 1 See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Countervailing Investigation, 79 FR 78044 (December 29, 2014). 2 See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 31942 (July 11, 2017) (CVD Amendment). 3 See CSC Sugar II at 4. 4 Id. 5 Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)). E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM 30OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2019 / Notices failure, during the consultations period, to maintain contemporaneous ex parte communication memoranda, in accordance with section 777(a)(3) of the Act, could not be adequately remedied by Commerce’s delayed and incomplete supplementation of the record.6 The CIT found that Commerce’s failure to follow the recordkeeping requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as ‘‘harmless.’’ 7 The CIT found that this recordkeeping failure substantially prejudiced CSC Sugar.8 On that basis, the CIT stated that the CVD Amendment must be vacated.9 The CVD Amendment remains in force until Commerce takes action to implement the CIT’s ruling. The CIT’s rules establish an automatic 30-day stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment.10 Accordingly, Commerce intends to implement the CIT’s ruling by November 18, 2019.11 Dated: October 25, 2019. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2019–23770 Filed 10–29–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–096] Aluminum Wire and Cable From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of aluminum wire and cable from the People’s Republic of China (China). DATES: Applicable October 30, 2019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caitlin Monks or Nancy Decker, AD/ CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 AGENCY: 6 See CSC Sugar II at 4. at 11–12. 8 Id. at 12. 9 Id. 10 See CIT Rule 62(a) (‘‘Except as stated in this rule or as otherwise ordered by the court, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days have passed after its entry.’’). 11 See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day after October 18 is Sunday, November 17. 7 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:18 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 250001 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2670 or 202–482–0196, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The petitioners in this investigation are Encore Wire Corporation (Encore) and Southwire Company, LLC (Southwire) (the petitioners). In addition to the Government of China (GOC), the mandatory respondents in this investigation are Shanghai Silin Special Equipment Co., Ltd. (Silin), Changfeng Wire & Cable Co., Ltd. (Changfeng), and Shanghai Yang Pu Qu Gong (Qu Gong). Qu Gong did not respond to our requests for information. On April 8, 2019, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of this investigation.1 On September 11, 2019, Commerce issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis.2 A summary of events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of comments from interested parties for this final determination, is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https:// access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Scope of the Investigation The products covered by this investigation are aluminum wire and cable. For a complete description of the 1 See Aluminum Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 84 FR 13886 (April 8, 2019) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM). 2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Post-Preliminary Analysis of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Aluminum Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated September 11, 2019. 3 See Memorandum, ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Aluminum Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum). PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 58137 scope of this investigation, see Appendix I. Period of Investigation The period of investigation is January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Use of Adverse Facts Available In making this final determination, Commerce is relying on facts otherwise available, including adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full discussion of our application of AFA, see the Preliminary Determination and the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 Analysis of Comments Received In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we address all issues raised in parties’ case and rebuttal briefs. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded, is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, minor corrections presented at verification, and our verification findings, we made changes to Changfeng’s subsidy rate calculation, and we have now assigned Silin a rate based entirely on AFA. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Final Determination In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we calculated an individual estimated subsidy rate for Changfeng and assigned to Qu Gong and Silin rates based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 776 of the Act. Section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination, Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. Changfeng is the only respondent for which we calculated an estimated weighted-average subsidy rate that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, 4 See Preliminary Determination PDM at ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences;’’ see also Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.’’ E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM 30OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58136-58137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23770]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-201-846]


Sugar From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Regarding Amendment 
to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On October 18, 2019, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 
Ct. No. 17-00214, Slip Op. 19-131 (CIT October 18, 2019) (CSC Sugar 
II). Commerce is notifying the public of the CIT's ruling that 
Commerce's 2017 amendment to the Agreement Suspending the 
Countervailing Duty Investigation on Sugar from Mexico (CVD Agreement) 
must be vacated. Commerce intends to take action to implement the CIT 
ruling by November 18, 2019.

DATES: November 29, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally C. Gannon, Bilateral Agreements 
Unit, Office of Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0162.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 19, 2014, Commerce and the Government of Mexico (GOM) 
signed the CVD Agreement.\1\ Between June 2016 and June 2017, Commerce 
and the GOM held consultations to address concerns raised by the 
domestic industry and to ensure that the CVD Agreement met the 
statutory requirements for a suspension agreement, e.g., that 
suspension of the investigation was in the public interest, including 
the availability of supplies of sugar in the U.S. market, and that 
effective monitoring was practicable. The consultations resulted in 
Commerce and the GOM signing an amendment to the CVD Agreement on June 
30, 2017, which was subsequently published in the Federal Register.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sugar From Mexico: Suspension of Countervailing 
Investigation, 79 FR 78044 (December 29, 2014).
    \2\ See Sugar From Mexico: Amendment to the Agreement Suspending 
the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 31942 (July 11, 2017) 
(CVD Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSC Sugar LLC (CSC Sugar) challenged Commerce's determination to 
amend the CVD Agreement by contending that Commerce did not meet its 
obligation to file a complete administrative record.\3\ Specifically, 
CSC Sugar argued that Commerce failed to memorialize and include in the 
record ex parte communications between Commerce officials and 
interested parties (including the domestic sugar industry and 
representatives of Mexico) as required by section 777(a)(3) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT agreed with CSC Sugar and ordered Commerce to supplement 
the administrative record with any ex parte communications regarding 
the CVD Amendment.\5\ CSC Sugar subsequently filed a motion for 
judgment on the agency record arguing that Commerce's

[[Page 58137]]

failure, during the consultations period, to maintain contemporaneous 
ex parte communication memoranda, in accordance with section 777(a)(3) 
of the Act, could not be adequately remedied by Commerce's delayed and 
incomplete supplementation of the record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. (citing CSC Sugar LLC v. United States, 317 F. Supp. 3d 
1322, 1326 (CIT 2018)).
    \6\ See CSC Sugar II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CIT found that Commerce's failure to follow the recordkeeping 
requirements of Section 777 of the Act cannot be described as 
``harmless.'' \7\ The CIT found that this recordkeeping failure 
substantially prejudiced CSC Sugar.\8\ On that basis, the CIT stated 
that the CVD Amendment must be vacated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. at 11-12.
    \8\ Id. at 12.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CVD Amendment remains in force until Commerce takes action to 
implement the CIT's ruling. The CIT's rules establish an automatic 30-
day stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment.\10\ Accordingly, 
Commerce intends to implement the CIT's ruling by November 18, 
2019.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See CIT Rule 62(a) (``Except as stated in this rule or as 
otherwise ordered by the court, no execution may issue on a 
judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 30 days 
have passed after its entry.'').
    \11\ See CIT Rule 6(a)(1). In this case, the 30th day after 
October 18 is Sunday, November 17.

    Dated: October 25, 2019.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
 [FR Doc. 2019-23770 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P